Terri Webb - Successful Appeal

[Rik]

Terri Webb was committed to a mental hospital for cycling nude about a year ago. She has just successfully overturned the judgement.

See http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A117575.htm

Rik

She should not have been sent there to begin with.... somebody needs to stick that judge in a mental hospital for abusing the judicial system.

[FireProf]

Part of the problem we have here in California, So Cal to be exact, is that when judges are up for re-election their records or stance on particular issues are never made public.

They end up winning re-election by the few people that vote for them without really knowing who these people are or what they stand for.

That judge that sentenced Webb to the mental hospital should be made to pay the tax payers back the court costs at least. /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[Stewey]

After reading Rik's link, I have to admit that she does sound like kind of a nut. Not that much of one that she needed to be put in a hospital, mind you, but a nut nonetheless.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dukhat:
After reading Rik's link, I have to admit that she does sound like kind of a nut. Not that much of one that she needed to be put in a hospital, mind you, but a nut nonetheless. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey, that's the same thing I said when I read your posts! /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[Jochanaan]

She doesn't sound like a nut; she sounds like a bold woman. And she obviously knows how much her body can take.

[Stewey]

"She was found in Eugene riding her bicycle naked in near-freezing weather."

"She insisted on remaining unclothed and attempted to assault a nurse who tried to clothe her."

"She expressed no fear of assault because she could take care of herself."

"Appellant has an apartment, but confesses that she is unemployed and is no longer able to pay rent."

Sorry, but these quotes do not inspire me with a lot of confidence that this woman is "bold", unless your definition of "bold = not right in the head."

[Gary Naturist]

The woman likes to ride her bike nude in the cold -- maybe she's a bit eccentric. She does so in part to promote the cause of clothes-freedom everywhere -- she's an activist. She can't pay her rent -- because she's poor.

It's a real travesty of justice that seemingly rational people, trained in the law and medicine, could deny her her freedom in this way. Appalling.

Gary

[greensunshine]

I am with Dukhat,

Ever do anything nude in Eugene in the cold...those of us who have even for a short time, will tell you...she is in need of some mental health...and not just as an outpatient either.

I have been nude in Eugene for just long enough to run to my car when it is raining in the summertime there...and I call the Seattle Metro area home for just a little while longer...so I think my own actions serve as an example of how cold the area can really get anytime of the year...Burrrr anyone got a spare blanket I can warm up with /infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Greensunshine /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Dale B]

I think she knows how much her body can take and she just wanted to get away from her apt to relax a bit. Maybe it's going to take all of us to be publically nude to get the word across to the clothed people that nudity in itself is not a bad thing. Sure enough, there are some people out there that have bad intentions when nude. That is something that all the "good nudists/naturists" can take care of. Right?!!!

Dale, West Des Moines, IA

[Bob S.]

We're all nuts in our own resepcts. I'll be the first to admit that I'm weird. In fact, when someone calls me weird, my response is "Thank you for noticing." I also am somewhat eccentric in certain aspects of my life. So what? After reading the reasons for putting her in the mental institution, I get the idea that it was all a waste.

She was put away for being naked in weather the authorities deemed too cold. Somewhere else in these forums, I recall seeing a conversation about walking barefoot (and naked) on ice way up north. Then there's the polar plunges that take place all over the world (well at least in places where the temps drop low enough). Should those people be committed? What's cold for one may be comfortable for another.

She was, according to testimony, well nourished, apparently healthy, and could take care of herself. Her only negative was her lack of a job. I can't see why they committed her. That kind of thing just makes you crazy, doesn't it? /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Bob S.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by greensunshine:
I am with Dukhat,

Ever do anything nude in Eugene in the cold...those of us who have even for a short time, will tell you...she is in need of some mental health...and not just as an outpatient either.
Greensunshine /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is what the judge said and he was found to be wrong. They gave her a physical exam and talked with her friends and roommate and she was never out long enough to cause herself any damage.

The judge evidently locked her up merely to avoid handling the sitation as he should have and this is unforgivable. He's the one that needs some "mental health" for doing that to an innocent person. I am glad the courts finally saw the truth and set her free.

How would you like it if you went to court and instead of hearing the facts they just said you are a nut and locked you up?

[missouriboy]

I'm with you, Cyndiann. The judge was arrogant to think his legal status qualifies him to make medical and/or mental condition decisions.

Not too many years ago, that was the standard sentence for all protestors in the USSR.

[Nude in the North]

According to that judges opinion, everyone in Minnesota should be "locked up". /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Steve

[Willbtan]

When I first heard about this case it concerned me as I thought about the future for all nudists.
If the courts are going to deal with anyone who does not "conform" to traditional ways by declaring them mental and institutionalze them, then we should all be concerned.
I am disappointed that already some here have called her "nuts". I have seen pictures on many sites of nude people laying in the snow and making snow angels. I have swam in the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon and the water was freezing. Am I nutty (I realize I have opened myself up for a shot here) or was the group I was with just doing something that is not normally done and doing it for a very short time?
I know people have trouble with activist, they tend to make us uncomfortable with ourselves.
Maybe we need more people who will be willing to take ridicule in order to raise AWARENESS. In fact nudist enjoy the freedom they have because people have pushed the limits before us.
Please, lets not be so critical of others who do things differently than we are comfortable to do.

[Rik]

"To be offended by the visual appearance of another person is prejudice, akin to racism. The right to exist, uncovered, should hold precedence over the right not to view this, for the objection is irrational." - Terri Webb

Sounds completely reasonable to me.

Rik

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rik:
"To be offended by the visual appearance of another person is prejudice, akin to racism. The right to exist, uncovered, should hold precedence over the right not to view this, for the objection is irrational." - Terri Webb

Sounds completely reasonable to me.

Rik <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Me too. This is precisely why I believe that, in some jurisdictions, it will be legal to be nude anywhere on public property (subject to health and safety rules). It will take only one court case won in each jurisdiction for this to happen.

Gary

[Rik]

Here's a link to an article about Terri Webb, written before the court case, which perhaps gives a greater insight into who she is and what she stands for.

http://www.bodyfreedom.org/alliance/essays/N_TerriW.html

Rik

[Nude in the North]

Thanks for that link Rik.
Up untill now I had never heard of her or her efforts.
I have never understood why people label someone with unusual views as "Nuts"
Pretty much every example of Progress throughout History has been made by someone that didn't share the views of others. For some examples of this take a look at the Faces on your Money.
Speaking of Money. Gary mentioned the word Eccentric. I'm sure if Terri Web was the daughter of Some Billionare she would never spend a day in jail. They would label her Eccentric and make her pay fines and that would be the end of it.
I've just had a Revelation!
I'm glad there are people out there that are willng to risk public ridicule or jail to further their cause. Without them we would still be in the Dark Ages.

Steve

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nude in the North:
I'm glad there are people out there that are willng to risk public ridicule or jail to further their cause. Without them we would still be in the Dark Ages. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly! George Bernard Shaw said "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

Rik

[nudebluffwalker]

"She was found in Eugene riding her bicycle naked in near-freezing weather."

If that is reason to call someone nuts and lock them up in a mental institution, consider the case of someone who gets drenched in a rainstorm in near freezing weather and does not remove their soggy cotton clothes. Since someone wearing wet cotton will loose more heat than wearing nothing at all, who is being nuts? If the police came along and ripped the dripping clothes from their body would we call them nuts for resisting?

Riding a bicycle, she was probably generating more body heat and she was warmer than would be someone standing in that same near-freezing weather wearing a business suit, no hats and no gloves. We in Minnesota see it all the time watching TV news: a newscaster in inappropriate clothing and no hat in subzero weather reporting live from a news scene. Shall we lock up the guy wearing a suit or the newscaster for wearing inappropriate clothing in near freezing weather?

I guess if someone wants to wear soggy, cold clothes in a rainstorm or soggy clothes in a swimming pool, that's their choice, but if we're talking about rational response to environmental conditions, it should also be an acceptable choice to remove clothes when they are inappropriate.

[Dale B]

Originally posted by Rik:
"To be offended by the visual appearance of another person is prejudice, akin to racism. The right to exist, uncovered, should hold precedence over the right not to view this, for the objection is irrational." - Terri Webb

Sounds completely reasonable to me.

Rik
-------------------------------------------------

I think this correct!!! Some may see African people nude in National Geographic magazines and possibly others. But do they complain about that?
All of us should be as bold as Terri has been. For those of us who believe in what the Bible says, look up James in the New Testament, Chapter 2 verses 14 through 24 (note verse 17).
Faith without deeds is dead. The same applies to all of us who believe in Naturism and its cause. We all need to be bold and stand out from the rest to state our case and prove our points!!

Dale Bowley
West Des Moines

(country song - "You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.")

[Running Bear]

"To be offended by the visual appearance of another person is prejudice, akin to racism. The right to exist, uncovered, should hold precedence over the right not to view this, for the objection is irrational." - Terri Webb

Sounds completely reasonable to me.

Rik
This quote was posted on the British Naturism forum and sent me on a quest for the context of this quote. This quote was made in 2002. Does anybody have a current update on this lady? The last post here being 2003 (I searched terri webb here). She is an Oregon activist in 'the freedom to be yourself movement'. The last google article claims she was released from a psychiatric prison as she was illegally incarcerated. Being naked in the cold was deemed 'nuts'. Why? Inuits are naked in their igloos and they are not warm. I am naked in snow and happy and I am not nuts [IMHO:-)] In England we have Steve Gough who is currently fighting along similar lines as Terri.
For a person who is deemed nuts I find the above quote to be worthy of respect and likely to have come from a person with a deep philosophical ethic.

[Stu2630]

To be offended by the visual appearance of another person is prejudice, akin to racism. The right to exist, uncovered, should hold precedence over the right not to view this, for the objection is irrational.

She is, of course, entitled to her opinion. I think it's utter nonsense.

There is a huge difference between immutable elements of one's appearance (like skin colour etc) and appearance which is behaviour driven, such as dressing in Ku Klux Klan gear in a black neighbourhood, or being inappropriately naked in public.

Stu

[Sigmund]

Stu - I usually enjoy your posts as the voice of the textile world but comparing simple nudism with wearing Klan garb in a black neighborhood is over the line. Klan garb is intended to be intimidating and to strike fear into the hearts of those who might fall victim to the anonymous klansman. Simple nudity would seem to be just the opposite.

[Stu2630]

Sigmund

I can see how, when I mention something as extreme and unpleasant as the KKK, my point gets lost. Terri Webb's comparison between the evils of racism and people's sensibilities when it comes to nakedness is equally diverting, so it makes my point for me quite aptly.

All I was pointing to was the fact that when it comes to appearance, there is a vast difference between immutable characteristics (like colour) and those which are chosen (like state of dress). I recognise that even if Ms Webb doesn't.

Stu

[MoonShadow]

Yes, your point got loss as the KKK and all its various subsidiaries are a terrorist group. Bicycling nude is not terrorizing anyone or a threat to anyone. Not a good example at all comparing the KKK with the young woman bicycling naked.

What this judge did was abominable. He should lose his license and removed from any legal associations for doing something like this.

Happy she fought this and got it overturned. Now hope she and her legal team go after the judge.

[Stu2630]

Moonshadow

What this judge did was abominable. He should lose his license and removed from any legal associations for doing something like this.

Happy she fought this and got it overturned. Now hope she and her legal team go after the judge.

Not a chance. This judgment did not concern any right to cycle naked. It was about whether her behaviour demonstrated that her mental state was so severe that she was not able to look after herself. Read it:

On appeal, appellant argues that there simply is not clear and convincing evidence that she cannot meet her basic needs or that she is a danger to herself.

She won a point of law about her personal mental competence, not about any right to expose her nakedness, so this isn't a nudist issue by any stretch of the imagination.

I find it odd that a woman who professes to being an anarchist is prepared to use the legal processes to the extent she did in order to get her own way.

Stu

[Naturist4Ever]

From the court of appeal:

>> [TSWebb has] limited insight, is unwilling to take medications, and has impaired judgment.

Hmmm, doesn't that apply to the current mr president as well? ;-)

The whole case was about whether TSW was a danger to herself a/o unable to provide for her own needs. I don't read anywhere it was actually about being nude as being a violation of some law in _this_ particular case (it was on earlier convictions). Whether she appears like "a nut" (as commented by others) is totally irrelevant. Many people pursue lifestyles or "hobbies" that make them appear like a nut to others, but as long as they do not impose a harm on anyone else or the environment there are few limits.

>> To be offended (....) is irrational.

Stu got totally locked into the use of the "akin to racism" in the above. However, those three words really serve little purpose in the overal context. If we remove those three words (saving us getting distracted by arguments around KKK etc) we get:

To be offended by the visual appearance of another person is prejudice. The right to exist, uncovered, should hold precedence over the right not to view this, for the objection is irrational.

* to be offended by someone else's appearance is prejudice. TOTALLY CORRECT
* the objection is irrational INDEED - ON WHAT IS IT BASED OTHER THAN "GUT FEELING"
* an irrational objection can't hold precedence. VOILA, IT IS SIMPLE

Note the use of appearance - not behaviour. This is crucial. Behaviour can be harmful, obviously, but can appearance? And how? Stu, your turn....

PS - at the same time how can one defend events like WNBR while at the same time declaring a nude bike by a single individual out of bounds. On what objective criteria...?

[Pete Knight]

This little gem has been popping up in various places recently, something that our Stu should take note of.

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over
any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent
harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a
sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear
because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him
happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or
even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or
reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for
compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise."

John Stuart Mill (book "On Liberty" 1859 - English Philosopher on
classical liberalism)


Isn't this just what is being perpetrated against Terri Webb and Steve Gough, are the powers not abusing their position to force their will on Terri and Steve?

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

Naturist4Ever

* to be offended by someone else's appearance is prejudice. TOTALLY CORRECTI disagree. The KKK argument may be at the extreme end of the scale, but the point still holds. If a man had a pornographic image tattooed on his back, I would find that offensive in public and i guess many nudists would too.

Note the use of appearance - not behaviour. This is crucial. Behaviour can be harmful, obviously, but can appearance? And how? Stu, your turn....It's the same kind of harm that makes us limit the use in public of obscene language, the display of pornography and sex, graphic scenes of violence and so on. It's an assault on the senses which can cause every bit as much angst, upset and distress as a physical assault.

PS - at the same time how can one defend events like WNBR while at the same time declaring a nude bike by a single individual out of bounds. On what objective criteria...?Personally, I would ban WNBR. It has NOTHING to do with nudism - even less to do with responsible nudism. It's purpose is to make a protest by shocking people (which nudism doesn't do). That aside, at least it is predictable (i.e. everyone knows when and where it will take place) and it occurs only once a year.

Pete

I am familiar with John Stuart Mill's works and I don't disagree with his statement. But it all boils down to how we might define "harm" - I have given it a broad, semantic definition to Naturist4Ever, which I suspect would find favour with Mr Mill himself.

(and please don't quote me a dictionary definition of harm because they only give lexical meanings, not full semantic ones!)

Stu

[Sanslines]

Stu,

The clock has struck Midnight in the UK and it is officially Christmas Day. It might be a good idea to give a break to arguments now, take a break, put on your Santa suit, and go out and give gifts to orphans and other underpriviledged children in the UK. This would be far more rewarding then continuing to argue into Christmas Day. Don't ya think?

Merry Christmas...........Peace and Good Will To All.........(should be the theme now)

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

I have two rather dull MA dissertations to mark before I go to bed and I keep popping on here every few minutes to wake myself up. Shortly, I'll be taking my dog for her late night walk.

I manage fine on three or four hours sleep per night. :)

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines

I have two rather dull MA dissertations to mark before I go to bed and I keep popping on here every few minutes to wake myself up. Shortly, I'll be taking my dog for her late night walk.

I manage fine on three or four hours sleep per night. :)

Stu


Stu,

If that is the case, then best to turn in and wake up refreshed in the morning. All doctors tell us that we all need 8 hours of sleep (plus or minus very little from the 8 hours). 3 or 4 hours leads to sleep deprivation and can make a person very lethargic and grouchy. Also, don't take the dog out for her walk late at night as there could be nudists lurking in the shadows!

[Sigmund]

Stu - the pornographic image comment was almost as bad as the klan garb - you can do better than that. Nudism, per se, is not the same as behavior that is intended to shock by its very nature. Granted, some people do things for the impact - either naked or clothed - but that reflects on the individual, not the majority.

Walk the dog - I hope it's warmer there than here - and mark those theses. Rest, collect yourself, and challenge us on a new day with real criticism, not cheap shots invoking marginal behavior - or behaviour as you folk like to spell it.

Happy Ramahanakwansamastice.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

All doctors tell us that we all need 8 hours of sleep (plus or minus very little from the 8 hours). Quacks, the lot of 'em!

3 or 4 hours leads to sleep deprivation and can make a person very lethargic and grouchy. I never get grouchy! :mad:


Also, don't take the dog out for her walk late at night as there could be nudists lurking in the shadows!Oh, that's OK. She is a huge dog (Great Dane) and knows exactly where to bite. Did I mention that she's very partial to sausages? :sneaky:

Sigmund

Nudism, per se, is not the same as behavior that is intended to shock by its very nature

I know it's not INTENDED to shock - but it still has the POTENTIAL to shock.

Stu

[Sigmund]

"I know it's not INTENDED to shock - but it still has the POTENTIAL to shock."

So does prayer in public places, but we tolerate it because it means a lot to those who those who do it.

I'm off to celebrate with the family. Back tomorrow. Be nice to those Masters candidates, their dullness comes from their experience with mortician professors, expert at letting the blood from ideas. (Yes I swiped that from a better mind than my own - E.G. Boring)

[Running Bear]

Pete
I am familiar with John Stuart Mill's works and I don't disagree with his statement. But it all boils down to how we might define "harm" - I have given it a broad, semantic definition to Naturist4Ever, which I suspect would find favour with Mr Mill himself.
(and please don't quote me a dictionary definition of harm because they only give lexical meanings, not full semantic ones!)
Stu
As much as a hate to admit it I find Stu agreeing with one of my opinions that no dictionary can define the ramifications of a word since a dictionary is out of date as soon as it is published. Popular culture moves the meaning of words ever onwards producing a very rapidly evolving language.
Pete nicked my Mills quote from my presentation [I recognise the quote format :-)] after I nicked it and fully researched it. I understood it as applying to the abuse of power. Webbs statement was of more interest to research its context.
I noted she claims to represent the freedom-to-be-yourself movement and was interested to read that the courts felt her actions put herself at risk of harm on two counts (1) being naked in cold (2) being a nude lady in an unsavoury neighbourhood. Some meat was added to the bones by also claiming she was unable to pay her rent (poor!). The appeal courts did decide that her nudity did not constitute a risk to herself but added that she was unable to give a comprehensive presentation of the ethics of naturism to prove she was a genuine naturist. Does one have to prove this? Could all of us prove to others that we are a genuine naturist as opposed to... what?
Although it is difficult to judge the courts intent, I suspect the charge of 'unable to prevent self-harm' was an attempt by the court to corrupt the legal position of nudity. Nudity of itself is not an issue it is the behaviour while nude that is important and here it seems this lady behaved in a most appropriate way while nude. This is what the charges were designed to corrupt.
I will add that an activist is not am anarchist. She is active against abuse of power against nudity but not necessarily against all power and institutions. She would be within her remit to use the legal system to maintain her rights.
Is she causing harm to others? That is open to societies judgement. I claim Stu frequently causes harm to my brain cells but I still wish him well on xmas day.
In the uk we are arranging a naturist murder mystery weekend and it would be fascinating for Stu to participate and work his legal mind as Sherlock Holmes did. There may also be a post as the murder victim however Pete has already been suggested as a candidate but I am sure he would step down for Stu :-) if he wished to participate.

[Stu2630]

Sigmund

So does prayer in public places, but we tolerate it because it means a lot to those who those who do it.

You mean prayer in public paces induces shock and revulsion? I'm a 24 carat atheist, Sigmund, but I can't say it would bother me in the slightest. Besides, I can't recall seeing it. Prayer usually happens in places set aside for religious worship or in the home. A bit like nudity should take place in nudist venues or in the home.

Running Bear

It is a common mistake people make to turn to a dictionary as the arbiter as to what a word means. The lexical meanings given in dictionaries are formulated by lexicologists and advance only a skeleton meaning. To understand the true meaning of a word, you have to drill down into its semantic potentials (i.e. all the possible meanings the word can be said to contain) and pragmatic (i.e. context dependent) meanings derived from any possible but recoverable meaning.

Miss Webb is not a nudist: she is an activist. While I can see connections between the cause she espouses and nudism, her aims and methods of achieving those aims make her an uncomfortable bedfellow for decent, responsible nudists. She has zero interest in gaining new beaches, resorts etc for nudists. According to the judgment, she describes herself as an anarchist and I suspect that her penchant for public nudity is motivated by her desire to demonstrate her anti-establishment credentials.

Expert testimony was clear that she does have mental or psychological "issues" to some extent, even if she is not so ill as require involuntary institutionalization:

She was admitted to a psychiatric hospital with a diagnosis of a "bipolar, manic episode.

She insisted on remaining unclothed and attempted to assault a nurse who tried to clothe her.

appellant explained that she wanted to educate people about legalizing public nudity.

(someone else who thinks they have some God-given mission to "educate" us all!)

In the past, she has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and has been committed on one previous occasion.

This is a mixed-up lady with issues and it would be both disingenuous, and possibly dangerous, for nudists to hold her up as some sort of mascot. The relevant judgment was made almost 5-years ago and I would be interested to know what has she been doing since.

Stu

[jon71]

If that public prayer was in Arabic you bet your sweet bippy it would cause shock and revulsion, and maybe a call to the police. I'm not saying that's how it should be, I'm saying that's how it is. Even as a Christian I know if I was at a restaurant and said grace out loud, even in a conversational tone, not shouting or anything, I'd still get some funny looks.

[Stu2630]

Jon

If that public prayer was in Arabic you bet your sweet bippy it would cause shock and revulsion, and maybe a call to the police.

This is a relatively new phenomenon. It's because, since 9/11, people have been led to believe that Arabs saying prayers in public are about to blow themselves, and everyone around them, to bits. It's not because they are shocked or offended by the prayers.

Even as a Christian I know if I was at a restaurant and said grace out loud, even in a conversational tone, not shouting or anything, I'd still get some funny looks.

Yup. I'd give you a funny look. But I wouldn't find it remotely offensive.

Stu

[Running Bear]

This is a mixed-up lady with issues and it would be both disingenuous, and possibly dangerous, for nudists to hold her up as some sort of mascot. The relevant judgment was made almost 5-years ago and I would be interested to know what has she been doing since.
Stu
In my OP I stated that I felt her words were worthy of appreciation. I am interested in the context and this is the only reason for biographical interest. Her medical state is irrelevant. I do not hold her as an icon for naturism but her words were powerful. The legal records were interesting reading but a side interest to this fact.
I was also interested in an update as to her activities since 2002 since googling is unfruitful and the movement for 'the right to be yourself' has become inactive.
Naturism (IMHO) includes all and is very tolerant of all members of society, even those who claim not to be naturists. I am a naturist but when I ride in the World Naked bike ride I am a nude activist but remove my clothes (if I was wearing any!) and I am still a naturist under that.
I admit that many activists are crazy and naturists distance themselves from some of the more extreme forms but hey, there is a little crazy in all of us:-)

[Stu2630]

Running Bear

I have a problem with what she says: it's a soundbite but doesn't stand up to analysis.

To be offended by the visual appearance of another person is prejudice, akin to racism.

That's the first problem I have: I don't appreciate my sensibilities being likened to blind prejudice of a section of the world's population because of factors they had no choice about such as their race. Racism is treating people as inferiors because of immutable characteristics and has historical associations of mass murder, slavery subjugation. A dislike of nudity involves asking everyone to conceal a certain area of their bodies when in public. To compare the two is facile and insulting to those who really have suffered the worst evils of racism.

The right to exist, uncovered, should hold precedence over the right not to view this, for the objection is irrational.

Everything that causes offence is, strictly speaking, irrational. Offence is not a rational response. Black people are not being rational when they get upset by racial abuse. It's not rational to get upset or annoyed if you are enjoying a meal in a restaurant if another diner becomes drunk and abusive. It's not rational to react with disgust or offence when someone intentionally breaks wind in a confined space. And it's not rational to object to Harold and his friends having a mass orgy in front of your kids on a nudist beach.

No, it's not rational to be offended by nudity - or sex, or foul language or hardcore porn or anything else. It is equally not rational to expect everyone to have the logical outlook and emotional composure of Mr Spok from the planet Vulcan. People are human - they're emotional beings with culturally and socially determined sensitivities and sensibilities and they have to be taken as they are and afforded some leeway when it comes to rationality.

With every right comes a responsibility, and chief among our responsibilities is the one which says we should do what we can to make everyone else's life as safe and pleasant as we can while enjoying our own life.

Stu

[Bob S.]

First, Stu, the word s.hocked when written with no spaces looks like this shocked Remember that for future reference. :D


Stu:"Racism is treating people as inferiors because of immutable characteristics and has historical associations of mass murder, slavery subjugation."

Sexism can be substituted for racism in that definition. And you still accept women's treatment of inequality and inferiority due to their immutable characteristics. The Middle East societies treat them worse simply for being women. If it was decided that darker skin was more erotic than lighter skin and, therefore, darker skinned people had to keep more clothes on than lighter skinned people, that would be racism. But it is somehow acceptable if the immutable characteristic is larger mammary glands?

Stu:"I know it's not INTENDED to shock - but it still has the POTENTIAL to shock."

Intent of "perpetrator" should rule when laws are written. Heck, over there you apparently don't even need a victim, just a potential victim.

Bob S.

[usuallylurk]

...it would be both disingenuous, and possibly dangerous, for nudists to hold her up as some sort of mascot. The relevant judgment was made almost 5-years ago and I would be interested to know what has she been doing since.

Stu

The nudist movement viewed her activities with some interest because they involved her nudity, but they did not hold her up as a mascot or hero. The nudist movement -- in a nutshell - objected to the court classifying her as mentally ill, just because she didn't want to wear clothes.

When her commitment orders were overturned -- she became responsible for her behavior. Note well that after that point in time, any of the acts she was charged with -- became HER responsibility. Translation = if she were brought into court again and acted that way in front of a judge, she could still go to jail, but this time for contempt of court, indecent exposure, and who knows what else.

I highly doubt that either of the two "majors"' legal wings would get up and defend her on a contempt charge if she took her clothes off in a court of law. NAC published some concerns -- but those concerns involved her lockup on the grounds that she was mentally ill due to her shunning of clothing. While it was overturned, I can understand how a judge might rule that way.

After her "psychiatric imprisonment" was overturned, she seems to have disappeared from the scene.

[Agde]

Stu -- It is actually spelt "Spock" and Leonard Nimoy is nowadays known as a talented professional photographer who has done some fabulous nudes, including the controversial Jewish heritage "Shekhina (http://www.leonardnimoyphotography.com/2photo.htm)" series.

Oh, sorry, we were talking about Terri Webb, the Oregon cyclist who braves chilly weather and doesn't believe in segregating people on the basis of clothing. Having spent a lot of time in Oregon, I can only applaud her spirit of adventure and marvel that her particular case got in such a tangle and got so much attention given the rich choice among competing local eccentrics. :)

[Running Bear]

STU: You do your reputation no good by diverting this thread into a discussion on racism as a comparison to nudity. This is a red-herring. It is prejudice to define nudity as 'evil' or 'likely to cause harm to self or others'.
To be offended by the visual appearance of another person is prejudiceThese are the words I relate to. The additional text provides context but do not necessarily add to clarity. Remember this comes from Oregon and her whole social ecology determines context. Elsewhere I am discussing body piercing and the irrational prejudice that we have compared to shaving. Both bring attention to the genitals but both do not imply a nasty person. I cited the example of the motorcycle nudes who do not go around biting heads off chickens. That would be pure implied ignorance. In my usage of the word prejudice I am inferring an irrational judgement ie a judgement based on unsound academic theories.
I know you do not deem all naturists as nasty people and this statement is relevant:
With every right comes a responsibility, and chief among our responsibilities is the one which says we should do what we can to make everyone else's life as safe and pleasant as we can while enjoying our own life.I have used several times (does it come from the ramblers association right-to-roam movement?)
I still feel that this case is an interesting window into history. I have learnt that a lady was judged for an incident which included nudity. I do feel that many people prejudice nudity. Nudity = sex / nudity = militant nakedness / nudity = harm. However this implication is unsound. Nudity is part of society and society must acknowledge and protect the rights of its people (including naturists). Naturists go out of their way to avoid offending textiles it is a pity that textiles do not go out of their way to reciprocate.

It is a great shame she has gone; I would have loved to have met her. I wish her love and light whatever she is currently up to.
I have found this biography http://www.bodyfreedom.org/guide/essays/N_TerriW.html which makes fascinating reading.

[Stu2630]

Sexism can be substituted for racism in that definition. And you still accept women's treatment of inequality and inferiority due to their immutable characteristics.

I certainly don't think women should be treated as inferior, but I do think they are different to men in all sorts of ways and sometimes that means treating differently - especially in those ways where they themselves prefer to be treated differently.

The Middle East societies treat them worse simply for being women.

That's true - but in such societies women really are considered to be inferior.

If it was decided that darker skin was more erotic than lighter skin and, therefore, darker skinned people had to keep more clothes on than lighter skinned people, that would be racism.But it is somehow acceptable if the immutable characteristic is larger mammary glands?

That's not a fair analogy. Heterosexual eroticism is largely founded on the physical differences between the sexes - it is these differences which form the basis for sexual attraction. It's how we know who to mate with. Eroticism is never founded on the differences between the races.

"Intent of "perpetrator" should rule when laws are written. Heck, over there you apparently don't even need a victim, just a potential victim."

Imagine you are a cop. You stop a drunk driver. He tells you that he didn't intend to get drunk, but the booze he imbibed was far more potent than he realised. Does that make it OK that he drove? The intention is not that he drove while drunk, it's that by driving at that time he took a risk that he was over the alcohol limit. So you have potential victims of his drunken driving when he gets behind the wheel. If a person is nude in public then he or she is nude intentionally - and they are taking a risk that they may cause offence - and there is your potential victim.

usuallylurk

I don't think there was ever any doubt that Terri Webb had mental issues. The question was whether they were so severe that she was in imminent danger and could not take care of herself. When a person with mental issues who behaves bizarrely comes to the notice of the criminal justice system, they will, by default, consider detention on psychiatric grounds rather than penal ones.

I can't imagine any reasonable and considerate nudist having anything to worry about from the Terri Webb case, whatever the outcome.

Agde

It is actually spelt "Spock"

I stand corrected.

we were talking about Terri Webb, the Oregon cyclist who braves chilly weather and doesn't believe in segregating people on the basis of clothing.

Another reason perhaps why her mental state is questionable. :D

Harold doesn't believe in segregating people just because they're having sex. He, too, is profoundly wrong.

Running Bear

You do your reputation no good by diverting this thread into a discussion on racism as a comparison to nudity. This is a red-herring.

I'm delighted you said that! :D So the next time someone cites the case of Rosa Parks to me when I mention segregation of nudist from non-nudist areas, I can rely upon you to intervene and tell them that it's a red herring. Excellent news!!!

In my usage of the word prejudice I am inferring an irrational judgement ie a judgement based on unsound academic theories.

Prejudice is about unfairly conferring characteristics on people and things based upon other, unconnected characteristics or limited experiences. If I get mugged by a black person and then hate all black people, I am prejudice. If I see the minimum qualifications to enter nursing are low and I draw the assumption that all nurses must be ill-educated or dense, then I am prejudice. To dislike nakedness in public is not prejudice any more than to believe that sex should occur in private is prejudice. We all now what nakedness looks like and what sex entails - we just believe there are places where we should not encounter these things.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> With every right comes a responsibility, and chief among our responsibilities is the one which says we should do what we can to make everyone else's life as safe and pleasant as we can while enjoying our own life. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
I have used several times (does it come from the ramblers association right-to-roam movement?)

No - I am the author of that! :D Glad you like it and I am flattered that you use it!

I do feel that many people prejudice nudity. Nudity = sex / nudity = militant nakedness / nudity = harm. However this implication is unsound.

I think nudists should credit the textile population with having a bit more sophisticated perception of nudity. We don't all associate nudity exclusively with sex - but in a world where most people are only nude either to bathe or to have sex, we also can not deny that association because it is valid. People also associate nudity with intimacy that exists within the family and very close relationships, and also with the toilet functions. That's not prejudice because we are not imbuing nudity with something that is not pertinent to it, nor do people generally hate nudity. Our own relationship with nudity is that it occurs in intimate circumstances and these are not in the public domain. Consequently, we are uncomfortable with nudity outside of certain, well-defined contexts.

Nudity is part of society and society must acknowledge and protect the rights of its people (including naturists).

I'm not disputing that. The question I am arguing is exactly what those rights should be. I believe that it should be a right for nudists to enjoy a fair share of public spaces allocated for their use but beyond the sight of the textile majority, or at least signposted. Elsewhere, the default should be that clothes are worn, although there is of course some flexibility for rambling, skinnydipping, sunbathing etc in places off the beaten track, and so long as the nudists do what they can to protect others from seeing their nakedness.

Naturists go out of their way to avoid offending textiles it is a pity that textiles do not go out of their way to reciprocate.

Some textiles do - in their own way. Are you seriously telling me you don't encounter a great deal of tolerance and acceptance? So far as I am concerned, this is a question of providing clear guidance for the practice of nudism in such a way that they are fully protected by law and from the law, so long as they are within those guidelines in letter and in spirit. Textiles must respect that nudists have a right to enjoy nudism while nudists must respect, and not dismiss or scoff at, textile sensibilities.

It is a great shame she has gone;

The fact that she has gone makes me wonder if she has either just "grown up" a bit, or else received treatment, and has put her previous behaviour behind her. I hope Steve Gough does the same rather than wasting his life in the Scottish prison system.

Stu

[MoonShadow]

Quote:
Sexism can be substituted for racism in that definition. And you still accept women's treatment of inequality and inferiority due to their immutable characteristics. Quote

Quote: I certainly don't think women should be treated as inferior, but I do think they are different to men in all sorts of ways and sometimes that means treating differently - especially in those ways where they themselves prefer to be treated differently.Quote


Of course women and men are different. Please explain how this means women or men should be treated differently?

[Sanslines]

Of course women and men are different. Please explain how this means women or men should be treated differently?

Why even men are different from other men. The differences vary tremendously. Yet, men are all lumped into the same bucket and treated the same regardless of their differences. If men are not treated differently from other men, regardless of the degree of differences, then why should women be treated any differenly from all men?

[Stu2630]

Moonshadow

Lots of ways. We dress girls and boys differently - we buy them different sorts of presents at Christmas. We extend different courtesies for women than for men (like opening doors, raising has, standing up etc). We avoid using certain expletives in female company or telling dirty jokes. We accept the fact that women are affected by menstruation in different ways and that means sometimes overlooking mood swings that come from hormonal changes. We accept the fact that women often have different priorities to men, like the care they extend to their appearance, their hair, nails, skin and so on tends to be far greater in women than in men. Many women insist on seeing only a female doctor, yet men rarely insist they are treated by a male doctor. Unless there is reason to do otherwise, it is generally accepted that a mother has priority over the father in the care and custody of a small child. Our society makes allowances for work absences for a mother far beyond what it would make for a father. And as Harold has pointed out, women enjoy vastly greater choices when it comes to dress and appearance than men do, both for work and in their private lives. Almost anything a male can wear can also be worn by a female, but the reverse is certainly not true. Women generally have access to and own infinitely more cosmetics, jewellery, body adornments, clothing and footwear options, styles, colours, fabrics etc - even including swimwear and nightwear! I can suggest some more if you like.

I am prepared to listen to what women want. If they, cumulatively, demand the right to cycle nude like Terri Webb, or swim topless in a public pool, then they must surely have that right. But I am also prepared to listen to the views of the many women who believe that conferring such rights on the tiny minority of their sisters who actually want them would be a retrograde step. It's clear to anyone that nudists are only vociferous and proactive in speaking up for the rights of women when it comes to them gaining rights to take their clothes off.

Stu

[MoonShadow]

Interesting what one calls differences. With our differences why would any of these differences have any effect on equality?

My apology in my post which should have read ....Of course men and women are different. Please explain how these differences would affect equality.

[Stu2630]

With our differences why would any of these differences have any effect on equality?

It doesn't affect essential equalities such as the right to work in almost all occupations, to drive cars (which women can't do in Saudi Arabia), the right to vote or the right to be considered of equal human worth. But whenever you make allowances for differences, small issues which may be described as inequalities are bound to follow: the examples I gave you illustrate many of these. The question arises as to whether we should enslave ourselves to the strict principles of equality, or whether these minuscule inequalities are acceptable or desirable because people actually like them and, most importantly, that includes the very people who could be said to be disadvantaged by them. That's why I am content with the restriction on female toplessness in swimming pools, although this is a different thread. I'm not exactly sure how your question relates to the Terri Webb issue.

Stu

[Sanslines]

It doesn't affect essential equalities such as the right to work in almost all occupations, to drive cars (which women can't do in Saudi Arabia), the right to vote or the right to be considered of equal human worth. But whenever you make allowances for differences, small issues which may be described as inequalities are bound to follow: the examples I gave you illustrate many of these. The question arises as to whether we should enslave ourselves to the strict principles of equality, or whether these minuscule inequalities are acceptable or desirable because people actually like them and, most importantly, that includes the very people who could be said to be disadvantaged by them. That's why I am content with the restriction on female toplessness in swimming pools, although this is a different thread. I'm not exactly sure how your question relates to the Terri Webb issue.

Stu

Stu,

You continue to be very rigid and opposed to any change in the status quo. You base your arguments on old ideas and refuse accept that times change, people change, customs change, and attitudes towards nudism can change if people are properly informed abut what nudism is all about. Be honest and face the music....the world in a real mess with such important issues as global warming. Clinging to the old ways will doom this planet and the exact same arguments that you present about your refusal to allow change concerning nudism will keep nudism in the dark ages forever. Sorry, but it is well past time for some changes.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

Gosh, you've got me wrong there. I'm all for change - where appropriate. The trouble is, who decides what should change and how? I know the kinds of changes some nudists would like to foist upon us and I don't want to live in the kind of society that would create. So naturally people like me would resist such changes.

the exact same arguments that you present about your refusal to allow change concerning nudism will keep nudism in the dark ages foreverI'm not sure why you think nudism is in the Dark Ages, let alone why you think I want it to remain there. I want nudists to be treated fairly and be given a fair share of public space at least in proportion to their numbers. What else do you want?

I want my society to respect nudism and protect nudists from those things which threaten the enjoyment of their pastime, such as the legal difficulties you encounter when using long-established nude beaches, and also gawkers. In return, I want nudists to protect the rest of us from having to see and be around their nakedness. That's not stuff from the Dark Ages - it's fairness and mutual respect.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines

Gosh, you've got me wrong there. I'm all for change - where appropriate. The trouble is, who decides what should change and how? I know the kinds of changes some nudists would like to foist upon us and I don't want to live in the kind of society that would create. So naturally people like me would resist such changes.

I'm not sure why you think nudism is in the Dark Ages, let alone why you think I want it to remain there. I want nudists to be treated fairly and be given a fair share of public space at least in proportion to their numbers. What else do you want?

I want my society to respect nudism and protect nudists from those things which threaten the enjoyment of their pastime, such as the legal difficulties you encounter when using long-established nude beaches, and also gawkers. In return, I want nudists to protect the rest of us from having to see and be around their nakedness. That's not stuff from the Dark Ages - it's fairness and mutual respect.

Stu

Stu,

What you want is an idealized situation that is not practical in so many cases. We have discussed those cases in the past. In such instances, mutual coexistance will have to be the rule as segregation most definitely will not work. Hence, the need to properly inform the public as to what nudism is all about so that the public can desensitize themselves to it and learn to accept nudism. It really is important that we all get over the minor stuff in life and phobias about nudism are indeed minor. This planet has far more serious things to be concerned about then if some man or woman is swimming or sunning nude.

[MoonShadow]

Interesting how you wrote that, Stu; enslave ourselves to equality. There is nothing in equality that enslaves anyone; not having equality enslaves.........and enslaves all.

[Naturist4Ever]

Please can Stu & his opponents stay on topic or take the diverted conversation somewhere else (don't just hijack a topic into a "personal" feud). Maybe it is time to ask CFF administrators to create a new forum: "Stu + opponents ONLY" - these lengthy debates are absolutely going nowhere.
================================================== ================

Now back to Terri Sue Webb.

Does anybody have a current update on this lady? The last post here being 2003 (I searched terri webb here).

There is reference on the net from 2006 that did not bode well (probably explaining the total silence). White pages doesn't have a listing. Some of the people connected to the FTBY may know more details, most noticably Vincent Bethel. Probably he can be contacted through the net somewhere. 2003 isn't that long ago, yet.

(quote from TSW): "We want to [...] open expression of freedom for every body"
- isn't that very much in line with the ideas of CFI (the implementation obviously different)?

[usuallylurk]

As I said, Terri Sue Webb seemed to have vanished shortly after her release from confinement.

TNS' NAC, as I said, showed an interest in her case -- but from reading the NAC bulletins, the interest in her case only went as far as questioning the tactic used for her confinement. They did NOT defend her in court, nor did they ever condone or support her behavior in the courtroom. Being nude or wishing to live that way is not a mark of insanity or mental illness requiring treatment. On the other hand, they didn't go near discussing whether her behavior in court was contemptuous, or if her behavior on the streets of Bend was appropriate and/or legal.

Vincent Bethell was a somewhat different story. They latched onto him as a 'sort' of pioneer.... they even invited him to the Eastern Naturist Gathering to give a talk. He infuriated the management -- and nearly all in attendance -- there by encouraging others to streak through the main resort mansion / office building / food prep building -- the ONLY place within the facility where nudity was not allowed, for a number of reasons. He seemed to have vanished from discussion after that incident.

[Bob S.]

Stu:"...but I do think they are different to men in all sorts of ways and sometimes that means treating differently - especially in those ways where they themselves prefer to be treated differently."

Breast size is an immutable characteristic. Women cannot help it that they have breasts that grow larger than men's breasts or that those breasts have working mammary glands. Yet society has deemed the female breast to be illicit to show in public while the male breast is fine. Women are being punished because of an immutable characteristic. It is, in that way, akin to racism in that an immutable characteristic is being used to discriminate against a group of people who have been, in the past, a subjugated group, especially when the laws were written.

Stu:"Imagine you are a cop. You stop a drunk driver. He tells you that he didn't intend to get drunk, but the booze he imbibed was far more potent than he realised. Does that make it OK that he drove?"

Drinking and driving can kill, Stu. Sunbathing or hiking on a less-used trail while naked is far from that. Even you agree with me on this aspect--if no sexual intent was meant, a person who is naked in public should not be facing the sex-offender registry.

What if a police officer saw a man naked with many people around and arrested him over the objections of the group, none of whom knew him, because none of them felt shocked or offended? Does the potential to shock outweigh reality?

Bob S.

[boatsteve]

http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=6717

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

In such instances, mutual coexistance will have to be the rule as segregation most definitely will not work.

Of course segregation can work: it already does work in many societies. There are places for nudists and places for everyone else. What's the problem with that?

Hence, the need to properly inform the public as to what nudism is all about .

People know what nudism is about. If they don't - tell 'em. You don't have to be naked to tell someone something.

so that the public can desensitize themselves to it and learn to accept nudism

You don't have the right to "desensitize" the public about nudity any more than Harold has the right to "desensitize" the public to the sight of orgies. Messing with people's minds and sensibilities without their consent is reprehensible - and that's what Miss Webb and her cohorts were trying to do. You want to enjoy your nudism but you don't seem willing to allow the rest of us to enjoy our nudity-free environment for ourselves and our children. You have no respect for our sensibilities - you just want to force us to take on your sensibilities. If other nudists have that attitude, there's no wonder people have prejudices and you have made so little progress.

Interesting how you wrote that, Stu; enslave ourselves to equality. There is nothing in equality that enslaves anyone; not having equality enslaves.........and enslaves all.

I vehemently disagree. Most political correctness stems from the insane perspectives of equality-zealots: it has a malevolent and stifling effect on our society and traditions. Some of the crazies in my country want there to be a "Mother Christmas" as well as a "Santa Clause", and that some of these should be Asian, black and so on. They are pushing for the right for male nurses to be required to wear uniform dresses, and boys to be taught how to play with dolls and they want to ban wedding rings in the workplace. Why do we want equality? To serve the interests of human beings, not to serve the interests of a cold philosophical principle. This is why communism ultimately failed and it's why there is now a growing counter movement against this sort of nonsense.

usuallylurk

I'm pretty sure that Mr Bethell also had mental issues. There seems to be something of a pattern of this among these "body freedom" extremists. Nudists would do well to keep them at a distance!

BobS

Women cannot help it that they have breasts that grow larger than men's breasts or that those breasts have working mammary glands.Yet society has deemed the female breast to be illicit to show in public while the male breast is fine.

Men don't have proper breasts. They have some vestigial tissue on their chests, but they don't generally look like women's breasts and they do not exist to function as working organs. I agree society has deemed the female breast to be illicit to show in public while the male breast is fine, and many people, women included, want male and female chests to be perceived very differently. For many women, their breasts are part of what make them female. They enhance and enlarge them if they are too small, and if they have to and a breast removed, they deem it a personal tragedy. Men do not regard their chests in the same way. Women's breasts and male chests have an entirely different social perception.

It is, in that way, akin to racism in that an immutable characteristic is being used to discriminate against a group of people who have been, in the past, a subjugated group, especially when the laws were written.

Women are not a subjugated group now - far from it! They are more than capable of speaking for themselves and when they do, legislators have to listen. Women as a whole are absolutely NOT asking for their breasts to be regarded in the same way as male chests - in fact, they don't want it. Nudists shouldn't try to foist it on them in the name of, and pretext of, "equality", especially when the real reason is that some nudists will always support any cause which involves a right to expose an intimate part of the anatomy in public.

Stu

[Naturist4Ever]

>> There are places for nudists and places for everyone else.

... now we need a place for Stu

>> You want to enjoy your nudism but you don't seem willing to allow the rest of us to enjoy our nudity-free environment for ourselves and our children.

You have consistently failed to describe what is your/the problem with nudity other than "I don't want to see it" - which doesn't hold even if everyone in the world but one doesn't want to see it.

In order to demand a nudity-free environment you need to start making clear what is harmful with "simple" nudity. A smoking-ban in certain areas we can all appreciate and understand - (passive) smoking is harmful in a scientifically proven way and done with it. Nudity on the contrary is an essential part of life - without it we would at the best stink and at the worst not be able to reproduce.

That you do not like to "see" nude people (I interpret that to be genitals and apparenly also breasts, but everything else ok) is your problem. Maybe you have similar problems with x-dressers, transvestites, gays, punks, dogs and fat people. That would be too bad for you, since all of them have the full right to be in any public space just the way they are and just like you.

Terri S. Webb was never an declared nudist/naturist. Neither are the likes of Steven Gough etc. Some are activists and take a confrontational route - and yes it is questionable what they achieve, if not the opposite of what they really want. Others - like Anita & Wolfgang Cramer (www.nacktiv.de) or those who organise the NEWT (www.nakedeurope.org/newt) - take the backdoor and while they don't get much publicity achieve far more success.

I am not sure if you refer with "You" to Sanslines or to nudists in general, but nudists/naturists in general are a friendly bunch who by far are not all activitists, and generally do not want to upset anyone. A debate about naturists vs nudist is something for another topic, but generally naturists take respect for others - including you (as long as you stay on topic!) serious, even if you feel that nudism is not for you.

But hey, dogs, piercings and x-dressing isn't for me either - still I accept their will and rigth to roam as they please. Anyone (not just "nudists") should have the same right to be nude in public, provided they behave normal and considerate.

[Sanslines]

>> There are places for nudists and places for everyone else.

... now we need a place for Stu

>> You want to enjoy your nudism but you don't seem willing to allow the rest of us to enjoy our nudity-free environment for ourselves and our children.

You have consistently failed to describe what is your/the problem with nudity other than "I don't want to see it" - which doesn't hold even if everyone in the world but one doesn't want to see it.

In order to demand a nudity-free environment you need to start making clear what is harmful with "simple" nudity. A smoking-ban in certain areas we can all appreciate and understand - (passive) smoking is harmful in a scientifically proven way and done with it. Nudity on the contrary is an essential part of life - without it we would at the best stink and at the worst not be able to reproduce.

That you do not like to "see" nude people (I interpret that to be genitals and apparenly also breasts, but everything else ok) is your problem. Maybe you have similar problems with x-dressers, transvestites, gays, punks, dogs and fat people. That would be too bad for you, since all of them have the full right to be in any public space just the way they are and just like you.

Terri S. Webb was never an declared nudist/naturist. Neither are the likes of Steven Gough etc. Some are activists and take a confrontational route - and yes it is questionable what they achieve, if not the opposite of what they really want. Others - like Anita & Wolfgang Cramer (www.nacktiv.de (http://www.nacktiv.de)) or those who organise the NEWT (www.nakedeurope.org/newt (http://www.nakedeurope.org/newt)) - take the backdoor and while they don't get much publicity achieve far more success.

I am not sure if you refer with "You" to Sanslines or to nudists in general, but nudists/naturists in general are a friendly bunch who by far are not all activitists, and generally do not want to upset anyone. A debate about naturists vs nudist is something for another topic, but generally naturists take respect for others - including you (as long as you stay on topic!) serious, even if you feel that nudism is not for you.

But hey, dogs, piercings and x-dressing isn't for me either - still I accept their will and rigth to roam as they please. Anyone (not just "nudists") should have the same right to be nude in public, provided they behave normal and considerate.

Well said!!

Stu is not refering to me for he knows very well that I have stated my position numerous times and that position does indeed involve reasonable compromise. My compromise involves everyone's opinions, and not just Stu's demands. What I have tried to point out to Stu on numerous occasions is that he does not get to etch the rules in stone anymore then I or anyone else does. The 'rules' of nudism are a constantly evolving or changing thing and are subject to many influences and opinions. Stu's opinion is but one opinion in the vaste sea of opinions. Quite simply, what Stu considers reasonable might very well be considered unreasonable by another person. He is not willing to accept that or to negotiate in good faith.

[Running Bear]

It's clear to anyone that nudists are only vociferous and proactive in speaking up for the rights of women when it comes to them gaining rights to take their clothes off.
Stu
I feel you infer a morality that I do not have. I stand for the right for an individual to wear clothes appropriate for the conditions, if there is no rational reason to wear clothes then none is required. I defend the right for any woman (man or child) to wear clothes when in my company as a naturist. Many people will feel it insulting to define naturists as wanting to see naked people. Naturists do have a herd-attitude and like to be with other naked-people however naturists are also happy when we are all wearing clothes. Naturism is defined as the I and clothes are just an accessory to define who I is.
I participate in naturist walks in the open countryside and the majority of walkers may be dressed for various reasons since we are primarily walkers and naturists second.
Activists by their very nature are not 'normal'. Are the suffragettes and feminists extreme? At the time they were thought abnormal but now are thought as normal.
Coming back to your quote on responsibility. The Ramblers association (uk) demanded the right to roam but also accepted that with that increased right would also come an increased responsibility. It seems that great ideas are repeated in history but the idea is still important. You plagiarise the idea but in your own words. I honour the idea not your person.
The ramblers association carried out a militant mass trespass on Kinder scout (75 years ago) which seems to have changed the history of walkers rights. At the time we called them militant now we hold them in high respect.
The case of Terri Webb is just an interesting event in history and I firmly believe in the seeking of knowledge and so am studying her. I am now aware of an update which was my initial quest.
I feel that Stu's peccadillos challenge me to justify my stance. How shallow can we be if we cannot deal with the Stu's of this world?
I have found a site known at the Body freedom collaborative (BFC) which makes for interesting reading. http://bodyfreedom.org/index.html

[Stu2630]

Naturist4Ever

You have consistently failed to describe what is your/the problem with nudity other than "I don't want to see it" - which doesn't hold even if everyone in the world but one doesn't want to see it.I think it does hold. There are many things people do not want to see and hear in public and the laws protect people from these sights and sounds. Would you consider it acceptable for someone to wear a tee-shirt in public with the 'C' word emblazoned on it in large letters? Or someone carrying a placard bearing a graphic image of an erect penis? These sights are physically harmless, but unacceptable in public. And nudity is every bit as offensive to many people as the images I have described.

Nudity on the contrary is an essential part of life - without it we would at the best stink and at the worst not be able to reproduce.We wouldn't be able to reproduce without sexual intercourse, but that doesn't mean we have to be made to witness it in public. Actually, I take that back. My wife and I managed to reproduce three times without the need for nudity!

Maybe you have similar problems with x-dressers, transvestites, gays, punks, dogs and fat people.I only have a problem with the people you describe if they behave offensively, like by exposing themselves.

Some are activists and take a confrontational route - and yes it is questionable what they achieve, if not the opposite of what they really want.Precisely!

nudists/naturists in general are a friendly bunch who by far are not all activitists, and generally do not want to upset anyone.I know that - and it is something I have long respected about naturists/nudists. And it's why considerate nudists have every right to demand a far better deal from the textile society than they get now.

Anyone (not just "nudists") should have the same right to be nude in public, provided they behave normal and considerate.They are not behaving considerately if they are openly naked in the presence of people they know may find that offensive. There are plenty of people like me who find nudity to be so utterly revolting that such a right would effectively prevent us from using and enjoying the public environment that belongs to us.

Remember that Harold thinks that anyone should have the right to have sex in public - which he regards as a normal and natural function and indeed a beautiful act. Public places are places we should all be able to use and enjoy, and take our children to, without seeing orgies, obscene words and images, and parts of the human anatomy which we find vile.

Running Bear

I stand for the right for an individual to wear clothes appropriate for the conditions, if there is no rational reason to wear clothes then none is required.And I stand for the right of the rest of us to be protected from revolting sights like nakedness when we should be able to use and enjoy public places free from such sights.

I participate in naturist walks in the open countrysideBut you generally cover up when people approach. And that's a good thing and I commend you for it. It has probably occurred to you that you may get an extremely hostile and unpleasant reaction if you don't and others make it plain they aren't happy about your state of undress. Such an encounter would spoil everybody's day and could lead you into some legal difficulties if the police became involved.

You plagiarise the idea but in your own words.
You're funny!!! How can you plagiarise an idea? :laugh: The link between rights and responsibilities has long been recognised and it was certainly not invented by the Ramblers' Association!

I feel that Stu's peccadillos challenge me to justify my stance.That's funny too! Which "peccadillos" did you have in mind? I certainly can't remember any recently. Unfortunately. But I'll let you know if any come to mind. ;)

I have found a site known at the Body freedom collaborative (BFC) which makes for interesting reading. http://bodyfreedom.org/index.htmlAnd they state that their goals are:

1. Develop and support collaborative projects, campaigns, and events at regional, national, and international levels. Extend and reinforce existing networks to share information, strategies, and other resources.
2. Increase participation in non-sexual social nudity.
3. Make our region more accepting of non-sexual social nudity.
4. Establish family-friendly clothing-optional beaches in Washington State, preferably in or near Seattle

I don't have a problem with any of these - so long as they keep to their places and stay well away from me and mine. :)

Mind you, I think you'll find that this "Body Freedom Collaborative" is now pretty much defunct, and has been inactive for the last two or three years.

Stu

[Running Bear]

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> I stand for the right for an individual to wear clothes appropriate for the conditions, if there is no rational reason to wear clothes then none is required. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
And I stand for the right of the rest of us to be protected from revolting sights like nakedness when we should be able to use and enjoy public places free from such sights.I am sure you are aware that my declaration was in response to your comment (below) and as usual you seem to have missed (or intentionally overlooked) the point I was making.
Originally Posted by Stu2630 http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=178605#post178605)
It's clear to anyone that nudists are only vociferous and proactive in speaking up for the rights of women when it comes to them gaining rights to take their clothes off.The peccadillo I charge you with is naturist prejudice and intolerance however I know I am pushing a point here.
My wife and I managed to reproduce three times without the need for nudity!WHAT?? Scratches head in disbelief! If your penis is exposed that is nudity if it aint exposed it is immaculate deception :-)

I have watched both the Queens TV message and researched Terri's exploits during 1999-2002 and both gave me great pleasure over Christmas.

[Stu2630]

Running Bear

The peccadillo I charge you with is naturist prejudice and intolerance however I know I am pushing a point here.I have a bias in favour of responsible and considerate naturism, but I am opposed to inconsiderate nudity, including the type promulgated by Terri Webb and Steve Gough etc. It really is that simple.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> My wife and I managed to reproduce three times without the need for nudity! </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
WHAT?? Scratches head in disbelief! If your penis is exposed that is nudity if it aint exposed it is immaculate deception :-)Where does sex usually happen? In a bed perhaps? What do beds have on them? Bed clothes perhaps? Can it be possible to indulge in marital congress in the dark, underneath bedclothes and whilst wearing pyjamas? Do you think it then possible to conjugate without seeing the naked parts of one's partner?

Or do I have to draw you a picture?

I have watched both the Queens TV message and researched Terri's exploits during 1999-2002 and both gave me great pleasure over Christmas.And I have enjoyed reading the latest account in the Scotsman of Mr Gough's exploits. Where has he just spent another Christmas? Prison, wasn't it?

Stu

[Running Bear]

[quote=Stu2630;178839]
I have a bias in favour of responsible and considerate naturism, but I am opposed to inconsiderate nudity, including the type promulgated by Terri Webb and Steve Gough etc. It really is that simple.
Quite a lucid stance and on this occasion I would agree myself with your first point. However I do respect the right for these people to practice their beliefs without fear of persecution and to only have laws applied to them that are reasonable. Many charges have been downright frivolous. I do feel that today's militants may be tomorrows heroes, who can tell? The mass trespas on Kinder scout illustrated this principle well. As previously noted the breast freedom movement demanded the right to breastfeed everywhere as a principle and now most ladies accept that they practice their sport in appropriate conditions. However without the extreme militant stance they would not have achieved that right.

Where does sex usually happen? In a bed perhaps? What do beds have on them? Bed clothes perhaps? Can it be possible to indulge in marital congress in the dark, underneath bedclothes and whilst wearing pyjamas? Do you think it then possible to conjugate without seeing the naked parts of one's partner?

Or do I have to draw you a picture?Thanks for that, clarity has now been given to your murky idea of procreation without nudity, I see you define nudity specifically now as "no visible skin". Seems like moving the goalposts but I am also guilty of this m'lord!
Regarding your offer of drawing a picture; yes please it would be very informative :-)
Although this idea would not be for me personally I respect your deep-felt conviction that this is acceptable behaviour.

And I have enjoyed reading the latest account in the Scotsman of Mr Gough's exploits. Where has he just spent another Christmas? Prison, wasn't it?Why be so flippant? I can cite Terry Waite or Nelson Mandela who were also in prison for many years. Does that make it right? I think not. Even the suffragettes were imprisoned for their beliefs before they were accepted as normal. I believe some even died for that belief. I have not studied the suffragettes but I believe all they wanted was the vote for women.

May I beg the forums indulgence to promote some of Terri's quotes.
“To be offended by the visual appearance of another person is prejudice, akin to racism. The right to exist, uncovered, should hold precedence over the right not to view [nudity], for the objection is irrational.” - activist Terri Sue Webb in the Spring 2002 edition of Nude and Natural magazine in article entitled "Beyond Safe Havens: Oregon's Terri Sue Webb"
"Clothing encourages us to fill it, to consume more. If the effects of our behavior and habits upon our bodies were generally visible, people would take care of themselves and be healthier." - activist Terri Sue Webb in an interview with Daniel Johnson on 16 Dec 2001
"If I am pushed into clothing for the sake of a trial, this aids the prosecution in its designation of my 'appearing naked' as a deed in itself, an act with intent, when its not an act, its simply what I am, what we all are. The judge has ordered that I appear 'appropriately dressed' in court or face jail time. I was appropriately dressed for the occasion the first time!" - activist Terri Sue Webb in a post to stopsegregation discussion group, 27 Nov 2001
I just present these quotes in order to suggest that this lady did have a clear-thinking mind. Surely the above suggests a deep philosophical attitude to body-freedom?
Update on Terri:
I see a judge released her from a charge that she may have been guilty of providing she did not appear in public naked for three years (2002). Her activities may have reduced and she is probably living the life of a jobbing-naturist now but the ideas she promoted between 1999-2002 live on.
...because I say so!!

[Sanslines]

And I have enjoyed reading the latest account in the Scotsman of Mr Gough's exploits. Where has he just spent another Christmas? Prison, wasn't it?

Stu

Stu,

Even pointing out examples such as this, where you are obviously taking great pleasure in knowing that Mr Gough is in prison, you still refuse to accept that you antagonize nudists in this forum. I personally think that the whole situation involving Mr Gough is a very sad situation and I would never take any joy in hearing that Mr Gough is rotting in jail.

You obviously have a very different opinion and seem to take great joy in knowing that the police nabbed another offending naked person and tossed the offender in jail so that he could rot. This is just another slap in the face of nudists in this forum with your 'holier then' attitude about how you textiles call all the shots and how wonderful it is to beat anyone down who dares to cross the nudity line set by textiles. Nudists may not agree with the antics of Mr Gough, Terri Webb, and others but we don't need to take great pleasure in their suffering either.

Concerning Terri Sue Webb, here are some of her quotes:

(Sorry Running Bear, but I noticed that you had referenced the same quotes above after I had posted this. My posting of her quotes again is only to prove a point of what she is advocating and fighting for and the price that she has paid.)

“To be offended by the visual appearance of another person is prejudice, akin to racism. The right to exist, uncovered, should hold precedence over the right not to view [nudity], for the objection is irrational.” - activist Terri Sue Webb in the Spring 2002 edition of Nude and Natural magazine in article entitled "Beyond Safe Havens: Oregon's Terri Sue Webb"

"Clothing encourages us to fill it, to consume more. Which is what I have done, resulting in my disturbing fat body. If the effects of our behavior and habits upon our bodies were generally visible, people would take care of themselves and not look like me." - activist Terri Sue Webb in an interview with Daniel Johnson on 16 Dec 2001

"If I am pushed into clothing for the sake of a trial, this aids the prosecution in its designation of my 'appearing naked' as a deed in itself, an act with intent, when its not an act, its simply what I am, what we all are. The judge has ordered that I appear 'appropriately dressed' in court or face jail time. I was appropriately dressed for the occasion the first time!" - activist Terri Sue Webb in a post to stop segregation discussion group, 27 Nov 2001

Nudists may not agree wholeheartedly with her philosophy, but many do admire her for standing up for her principles. How many others will actually fight for what they believe in and not give in or give up when the going gets rough and tough?

[missouriboy]

Well, this topic is now rapidly closing in on a doulbe-digit page-count, and we all know what that means, don't we: Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630 Stu2630

:eek:

[Stu2630]

Bear

However I do respect the right for these people to practice their beliefs without fear of persecution and to only have laws applied to them that are reasonable. Many charges have been downright frivolous.

What's the alternative? We could ask Mr Gough if he would refrain from walking about nude in public, but somehow I don't think he'd take much notice of that. Not to take action against him would be tantamount to saying the whole public domain is clothing-optional. I don't want to live in a society like that, thanks.

I do feel that today's militants may be tomorrows heroes, who can tell? The mass trespas on Kinder scout illustrated this principle well.

There is a time-honoured tradition of breaking the law under the noses of the authorities, then taking your punishment and hoping that will prompt a change in the law. But there comes a point at which you just become a pain in the butt, and that's what Mr Gough has become, IMO. Mr Gough is not a nudist, and I think he has done nudism a great favour by making that clear. He has no support in mainstream politics or the mainstream media and is now regarded as a nutter.

now most ladies accept that they practice their sport in appropriate conditions. However without the extreme militant stance they would not have achieved that right.

They haven't achieved any "rights" in England so far. But again, this isn't remotely a nudist issue, so perhaps we'll leave it alone.

I see you define nudity specifically now as "no visible skin".

Absolutely. If you can't see it, you can't be offended by it.

Why be so flippant? I can cite Terry Waite or Nelson Mandela who were also in prison for many years. Does that make it right?

At first, I did feel some sympathy for Mr Gough because, in spite of everything, I thought he was sincere. Now, though, he is achieving nothing and being utterly pig-headed, while costing the UK taxpayer a fortune. He needs to get out of prison, go home and rebuild his life. He had a fantastic platform after his walks to have done wonderful things to advance nudism, but he squandered it by discrediting himself in the way he has. Terry Waite wasn't imprisoned for a cause - he was simply kidnapped. I know it's unfashionable to remind people of this fact, but Nelson Mandela was imprisoned not because of his beliefs, but because he was involved in making and placing bombs intended to kill innocent members of the public.

I just present these quotes in order to suggest that this lady did have a clear-thinking mind. Surely the above suggests a deep philosophical attitude to body-freedom?

Terri Webb was a self-proclaimed anarchist and her nudity was an expression of that. As such, her political beliefs were as odious as those of most other extremist movements and she should not be held up as a fine example of a decent, committed nudist. She also had manic depression (bipolar disorder) which can dispose sufferers to bouts of bizarre behaviour - again not something most nudists would wish to align themselves with.

The fact that she has disappeared off the radar for the last five years suggests she's been receiving treatment and she has finally got her head together. I hope so, any way.

Sanslines

Even pointing out examples such as this, where you are obviously taking great pleasure in knowing that Mr Gough is in prison, you still refuse to accept that you antagonize nudists in this forum.

Why should it antagonize nudists? Mr Gough has declared that he is NOT a nudist. When I mentioned his imprisonment it was in response to claims that nudity has become more acceptable. Clearly, his case demonstrates that it has not.

Nudists may not agree wholeheartedly with her philosophy, but many do admire her for standing up for her principles. How many others will actually fight for what they believe in and not give in or give up when the going gets rough and tough?

That's what fanatics do. It's what Al Qaida are doing right now. And I don't admire them, either.

Stu

[Sanslines]

That's what fanatics do. It's what Al Qaida are doing right now. And I don't admire them, either.

Stu

Those who fight for what they believe in are all fanatics? So you don't admire anyone for fighting for what they believe in? Are you sure this is what you are really trying to say???

[Pete Knight]

Those who fight for what they believe in are all fanatics? So you don't admire anyone for fighting for what they believe in? Are you sure this is what you are really trying to say???
Hmmmm, Stu is fighting for what he believes in, and seems to be quite fanatical about his beliefs, so what is the difference between Terri Webb and Stu then?

Pete Knight

[Sanslines]

Hmmmm, Stu is fighting for what he believes in, and seems to be quite fanatical about his beliefs, so what is the difference between Terri Webb and Stu then?

Pete Knight

What a good observation and good question!

[Bob S.]

Stu:"Men don't have proper breasts. They have some vestigial tissue on their chests, but they don't generally look like women's breasts and they do not exist to function as working organs."

Men have nipples, just as women do. All laws outlawing the female breast forbid the showing of the nipples in particular. But again, this started with Terri Webb's quote, "To be offended by the visual appearance of another person is prejudice, akin to racism."

You have stated that it is wrong because skin color is an immutable characteristic. I am saying that breast size is also an immutable characteristic as well. You are now saying there is a double standard for immutable characteristics. Skin color outranks gender differences in terms of what should be acceptable.

You say breast size is what makes a woman feel feminine. So skin color makes one feel like they belong to whatever group they are in. People with lighter skin do not regard the subtle shades of their skin as important as people with darker skin. A person with too light of skin, while still being of the same ethnicity of one group, may be left out socially.

When segregation of schools ended in the US, not everyone was happy about it. Even some black leaders wanted to keep the status quo as they did not want to end the private schooling of their children. Others were rightfully afraid of what was going to happen when black children started to attend all-white schools. Yet, it had to be done for the betterment of society and for equality years down the line.

Changing the status quo is never a popular thing to do. The status quo is basically the popular opinion of the time. However, when you are talking about allowing two separate but equal groups to do the same things, it is rarely wrong even if it may be hard in the beginning. Allowing the immutable characteristic of breast size to be treated equally for all is going against the status quo, but it is also why the NY State Court of Appeals made the decision they did. Laws have to treat males and females equally as gender is an immutable characteristic.

Bob S.

[Running Bear]

Hmmmm, Stu is fighting for what he believes in, and seems to be quite fanatical about his beliefs, so what is the difference between Terri Webb and Stu then?

Pete Knight

....breasts and, dare I say, penis? :-)

Stu: I dislike you bringing up personal medical history which is irrelevant and disrespectful when discussing words and actions of said activist. Although I cannot deny it makes Terri who she is and may explain her absence there are better ways you could have dealt with this.
...as I have said before most average (?) naturists do not like militant/activists as we feel they may induce a confrontation that may be counter-productive. Just because we do not like them does not mean we actively police them. We do not live in a police state (?) and we allow these people a freedom of expression; said right also being extended to you here. All I (we) ask is that you show the respect to us that we show to you (generally there are exceptions).



Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> However I do respect the right for these people to practice their beliefs without fear of persecution and to only have laws applied to them that are reasonable. Many charges have been downright frivolous. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
What's the alternative? We could ask Mr Gough if he would refrain from walking about nude in public, but somehow I don't think he'd take much notice of that. Not to take action against him would be tantamount to saying the whole public domain is clothing-optional. I don't want to live in a society like that, thanks.If society does not have any laws that specifically target a person from walking nude in public then perhaps we have to live in this tolerant society.
This reminds me of a Star Trek quote: the needs of the many exceeds the needs of the one(when poor old Spock was dying). One person does not manipulate the needs of the many to practice their beliefs when the majority are tolerant.
You dismiss my breast feeding analogy but it correlates well here. The idea is we demand the right to be naked everywhere in order to win the right to be naked where appropriate. This idea seems totally reasonable.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

Those who fight for what they believe in are all fanatics? So you don't admire anyone for fighting for what they believe in? Are you sure this is what you are really trying to say???

It depends what people believe in and their methods of furthering their cause. Those who believe the whole world should be forced to adopt Islam as a religion hold fanatical opinions, and are entitled to hold and express those opinions. Simple communication is always acceptable and never amounts to fanaticism: attempting to achieve an aim by anything other that persuasion and dialogue would make someone a fanatic. On the other side of the coin, there are anti-abortionists who use unpleasant tactics, like hate mail and even violence. I have some sympathy with their cause, but their methods are extreme and make them fanatics. To me, any behaviour which involves trying to force society to change its beliefs by methods which can cause alarm or distress to bystanders at the very least borders on fanaticism.

BobS

You are now saying there is a double standard for immutable characteristics. Skin color outranks gender differences in terms of what should be acceptable.

There is a saying in legal circles which says that "hard law is bad law". It would be foolish to imply that immutable characteristics never mean that people are treated differently. This usually occurs either for common sense purposes, or because both groups agree with and accept the different treatments. If I were to make a film about the life of Martin Luther King, I would audition black males for the role only. I'm sorry if a Chinese lady fancied the role but, no matter how good an actress she was, she wouldn't get it. Neither would a white man. You may call that discrimination - I call it common sense. Similarly, we treat male and female chests differently. A school sports teacher may ask the boys to strip down to their waists to perform an exercise, but he could make no such demand upon girls, and even a female teacher could find such an instruction difficult to enforce. As I said, the purpose of anti-discrimination rules is not to make a rigid edicts to which we must all abide by, but rather to make the world better for disadvantaged minorities. If women as a whole want their chests to be treated the same as male chests, then they should have that right. But they don't, and many find the idea objectionable, as the Swedish equality watchdog pointed out.

When segregation of schools ended in the US, not everyone was happy about it. Even some black leaders wanted to keep the status quo as they did not want to end the private schooling of their children.

They had a point and should have been at least listened to. But I would bet that the overwhelming majority felt differently about it and viewed segregation as something bad, so it was right that it was changed.

Yet, it had to be done for the betterment of society and for equality years down the line.

Maybe. But maybe not. We can't say what the outcome would have been if segregation had continued. For all we know, the black schools could have thrived and become a beacon for all.

Allowing the immutable characteristic of breast size to be treated equally for all is going against the status quo, but it is also why the NY State Court of Appeals made the decision they did. Laws have to treat males and females equally as gender is an immutable characteristic.

The NY State Cort of Appeal were entitled to make whatever decision they wanted - as are other courts and authorities who have decided this issue differently. It's not just about breast size, it's about breast function and, more importantly, the prevailing cultural connotations that human beings of both sexes attach to the female breast. Like it or not, it has become sexual: that's why there are topless bars etc. You think we should lose that connotation but I don't. Nor, in my experience, do most men nor most women.

Running Bear

Stu: I dislike you bringing up personal medical history which is irrelevant and disrespectful when discussing words and actions of said activist. Although I cannot deny it makes Terri who she is and may explain her absence there are better ways you could have dealt with this.

This information is in the public domain and has to be factored in. You and others here talk about MY "personal medical history" when you mention my supposed phobia - a phobia is every bit as much a mental health issue as is manic depression.

..as I have said before most average (?) naturists do not like militant/activists as we feel they may induce a confrontation that may be counter-productive.

Very true.

Just because we do not like them does not mean we actively police them. We do not live in a police state (?) and we allow these people a freedom of expression; said right also being extended to you here.

I don't expect you to 'police' them, but if you actively defend them then you are asking to be challenged for doing so.

All I (we) ask is that you show the respect to us that we show to you (generally there are exceptions)

I believe that I do show you respect - I do respect most naturists, even those I disagree with. You have always been courteous to me and I have returned that courtesy. Mr Gough is not a nudist, nor does he visit this site, so he is fair game.

If society does not have any laws that specifically target a person from walking nude in public then perhaps we have to live in this tolerant society.

Some areas of law are framed very loosely - on purpose. Chief among these are public order laws, so the laws do not stipulate that you can't have sex in public, or shout obscene language, or display a pornographic image, but no-one would doubt that such behaviours are illegal because people don't want such things in the public environment. Same goes for nudity. All these things - including nudity - can be deemed by the police, and ultimately by the courts - as behaviour which is insulting or disorderly and likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress - and so would fall under offences in the 1986 Public Order Act.

This reminds me of a Star Trek quote: the needs of the many exceeds the needs of the one(when poor old Spock was dying). One person does not manipulate the needs of the many to practice their beliefs when the majority are tolerant.

Depends who you consider to be the "many". It would be wrong to allow a half-a-dozen fanatics to paste up anti-semitic posters in a town where only 10% of the people are Jewish on the basis that 90% of people don't object. The point is that 10% of a town of 100,000 people is 10,000 people - and they are upset or offended by these posters. If a man walks naked through a town and is seen by 100 people and only 10% of people find his nakedness objectionable (and in reality it would be a heck of a lot more), that means he has upset 10 people selfishly and unnecessarily.

You dismiss my breast feeding analogy but it correlates well here. The idea is we demand the right to be naked everywhere in order to win the right to be naked where appropriate. This idea seems totally reasonable.

If you demand the right to be naked everywhere, then some fanatics will exploit that right to the full - and to the annoyance of others. No, it's NOT reasonable. Your logic is like me deciding that the speed limit on the road I travel to work on should be raised from 30mph to 40 mph, and so driving along it at 100mph in order to win the right to drive at 40 where I think it is appropriate. Please try to understand this that while I respect your love of nakedness and I believe you should have places where you can practise it, I find nudity abhorrent and loathsome: you will be welcome in my home as a friend and guest, but I would be utterly repelled by you if you were naked. I don't want to share my world with you during those times you are naked. Right now I don't have to and I want things to stay this way.

Fight for more opportunities to practise you nudism; fight to keep those places you have and fight to get new ones, in better locations and with better facilities. But respect the fact that many people really don't want to encounter you naked, so don't try to make the world a better place for people like you at the expense of people like me.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines



It depends what people believe in and their methods of furthering their cause. Those who believe the whole world should be forced to adopt Islam as a religion hold fanatical opinions, and are entitled to hold and express those opinions. Simple communication is always acceptable and never amounts to fanaticism: attempting to achieve an aim by anything other that persuasion and dialogue would make someone a fanatic. On the other side of the coin, there are anti-abortionists who use unpleasant tactics, like hate mail and even violence. I have some sympathy with their cause, but their methods are extreme and make them fanatics. To me, any behaviour which involves trying to force society to change its beliefs by methods which can cause alarm or distress to bystanders at the very least borders on fanaticism.

So, individuals such as Ghandi and Martin Luther King are all fanatics based upon your definition. In fact, anyone who goes beyond sitting around and chit chating over a cuppa is a fanatic. Ya know, the sight of all those engaged in peace marches was very distressing to some. Your definition is obviously very well suited to support your claim to keep the nudists out of sight and out of mind. We all see right through it.

[Running Bear]

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> Stu: I dislike you bringing up personal medical history which is irrelevant and disrespectful when discussing words and actions of said activist. Although I cannot deny it makes Terri who she is and may explain her absence there are better ways you could have dealt with this. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
This information is in the public domain and has to be factored in. You and others here talk about MY "personal medical history" when you mention my supposed phobia - a phobia is every bit as much a mental health issue as is manic depression.Accepted, but it would have been more appropriate to refer to it as 'having medical problems that may affect her behaviour'. Again it was her words not her behaviour that is the subject of this thread. I may refer to you as having a phobia to nudity but this would have been in a general term not as a medical diagnosis. You brandish the medical aspect in order to strengthen a weak argument and that I object to.

Most of your other comments have validity and I accept them as another viewpoint. I neither agree nor disagree with them. I do not defend activists directly. I defend their right not to be persecuted as equally as I defend your right to your own personal viewpoint.

Incidentally a phobia is actually an irrational dislike of nudity and you probably have a rational dislike of nudity. I may disagree with your reasons but you have a right to them. I will continue to pick holes in your comments as you pick holes in mine.

I have obtained two pictures of Terri in 2000 and 2002 (google Terri Webb under images and you will find them). In the first she is only topless and looks a little chubby. In 2002 she is naked and seems to me to have a more lithe figure. Accepting the possibility she may have lost weight do you think the lack of clothes has made her look more attractive? I do, but then I have a phobia of clothes :-)

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

So, individuals such as Ghandi and Martin Luther King are all fanatics based upon your definition. In fact, anyone who goes beyond sitting around and chit chatting over a cuppa is a fanatic.

My definition of a fanatic was that it depended upon a combination of what people believe in as well as their methods of furthering their cause and there is, to some extent, a trade off. A person can be fanatical about converting every human being on the planet to the faith of Islam, but if they were attempting to do this only with persuasion, then they could not be defined as fanatics (in the negative sense). Similarly, an organisation like Fathers for Justice, which seeks to advance the perfectly laudable aim of improving the rights of divorced fathers, can be described as fanatics by virtue of the extreme methods they use. Ghandi could certainly be regarded as a fanatic because his methods were very disruptive and contrary to law, but history does not judge him so for two reasons - firstly, his methods were strictly non-aggressive, and secondly he was demanding an end to the oppression of an entire nation occupied by a foreign power. I can't see how Martin Luther King can be described as a fanatic in any sense.

Yes, there are grey areas when it comes to fanaticism. A person may be perceived as a fanatical terrorist by one side of a divide while being seen as a dedicated freedom-fighter by the other. It all depends upon where you stand. In the case of Steve Gough, I see him as a dysfunctional malcontent and a public nuisance - and I think Terri Webb was the same five years ago.

Ya know, the sight of all those engaged in peace marches was very distressing to some.

No way. I have yet to meet anyone who finds a peaceful march "very distressing". A peaceful march is a long-established, recognised and respected form of protest. Walking around or cycling naked is not.

Your definition is obviously very well suited to support your claim to keep the nudists out of sight and out of mind. We all see right through it.

Well let's have the Oxford English Dictionary's definition, albeit a lexical rather than a semantic one: "a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause" (p. 624). Yup. I think that fits Steve Gough and Terru Webb to a tee!

Stu

[Daveinct]

It seems to me the doctor who testified in support of committing her needs a bit of educating. From the decision on her appeal:

"He nevertheless concluded that she should be involuntarily com